Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 18 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 18 March 2026, given in German in UPC_CFI_135/2024 and UPC_CFI_477/2024, the Düsseldorf Local Division upholds Dolby International AB’s EP 3 605 534, presented as essential to the Opus audio codec, and finds it infringed by the Grundig smart TVs of Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. It rejects the exhaustion defence based on the licence granted to the chip supplier and the FRAND objection, since the defendants never declared their willingness to take a licence, and then grants an injunction for four States together with corrective measures. For SEPs outside telecoms, the division aligns with the Mannheim and Munich Local Divisions on the Huawei v ZTE framework and accepts that Article 102 TFEU applies even without a FRAND commitment by the patentee.

Facts and procedure

The patent, entitled « audio decoding with selective post-filtering », is in force in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Italy. Claims 1 (apparatus) and 6 (method) are asserted. After notice letters from 21 April 2023 onwards, including one of 24 January 2024 with a claim chart, the action was filed on 5 April 2024. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and relied on exhaustion and on Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

The applicable law

Validity is assessed under Art. 138(1)(a) to (c) EPC, infringement under Arts 25(a) and 26(1) UPCA, and exhaustion under Art. 29 UPCA. The FRAND objection rests on Art. 102 TFEU and on Huawei v ZTE (paragraph 453).

Question

Is the patent valid and used by an Opus decoder, does the licence granted to the chip supplier exhaust the patent rights, and does the Article 102 TFEU objection bar an injunction?

Decision

Setting the post-filter gain « to zero » means a gain of zero decibels, that is an unchanged signal, which covers both a bypass and a pass-through. LPC and LTP synthesis filters belong to the decoding section and are not pitch enhancement filters (paragraphs 173 to 199). Every validity attack fails: no prior art discloses selective disabling of the post-filter within the mode that includes it (paragraphs 223 to 349), and the auxiliary requests need not be considered (paragraph 353). The TVs literally infringe claim 1, Opus’s CELT mode switching the post-filter by one encoder bit, and indirectly infringe claim 6 (paragraphs 356 to 414). Exhaustion fails: the defendants plead no placing on the EU market, do not show that all devices contain MediaTek chips, and the two-tier licensing model confines consent to the chips (paragraphs 415 to 435). On FRAND, dominance is established because consumers expect a smart TV to decode all common codecs (paragraphs 464 to 467), but the analysis stops at the second step: Beko did not answer the notice of 24 January 2024 before the action was filed, and its later statement that it was « in principle willing » amounts to accepting only a zero royalty (paragraphs 486 to 492). The injunction is granted, proportionality being already built into the Huawei v ZTE framework. Damages run from 20 November 2021 and penalty payments reach up to EUR 100,000 per day (paragraphs 503 to 517). Publication is refused for want of a demonstrated legitimate interest (paragraphs 518 to 520). The defendants bear all costs. The value of the dispute is set at EUR 1,500,000 per action and the ceiling for recoverable costs at EUR 400,000 (paragraphs 521 to 531).

Key points for practice

• Art. 102 TFEU applies to a dominant patentee even without a FRAND commitment to a standards body. How far Huawei v ZTE applies in that case is left open (paragraphs 468 to 471).
• A defendant relying on exhaustion must show specific placings on the EU market. A licence to a component supplier does not cover the end device where the licensing model provides for a second licence (paragraphs 420 and 430 to 433).
• Saying one is « in principle willing » to take a licence while treating the patent as already paid for is not a declaration of willingness (paragraphs 490 and 491).
• Practical point: a manufacturer that receives a notice with a claim chart should answer and clearly state its willingness to take a licence before any action is filed, failing which the patentee’s offer will not be examined.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 20, 21, 24, 25(a), 26(1), 29, 42, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 80 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 19.7, 30.2, 32.3, 36, 118.5, 118.8, 352 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56, 69, 123(2), 138(1)(a), (b) and (c)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3

Other provisions

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Arts 101, 102 and 267, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Arts 4(1), 7(2), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm, 22 November 2024, Munich Local Division, Huawei v Netgear, 18 December 2024, Munich Local Division, NanoString v 10x Genomics, 19 September 2023, Munich Local Division, Brita v Aquashield, 22 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_248/2024), Court of Appeal, Abbott v Sibio, 14 February 2025, Court of Appeal, expert e-Commerce v Seoul Viosys, 2 October 2025, Court of Appeal, Meril v Edwards, 25 November 2025, Court of Appeal, Amgen v Sanofi, 25 November 2025, Court of Appeal, Barco v Yealink (Xiamen) Network, 28 November 2025, Court of Appeal, Bhagat v Oerlikon, 9 December 2025, Court of Appeal, Rematec v Europe Forestry, 17 February 2026, CJEU, Huawei v ZTE, 16 July 2015, C-170/13

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.